The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 161

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Threads 1-50

Threads 51-100

Threads 101-150

Thread 151	Thread 152	Thread 153	Thread 154	Thread 155	Thread 156	Thread 157
Thread 158	Thread 159

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 160

[OLD REGGIE]

, unlike you and other neo-Christians entertain no illusions of infallibility in regard to the interpretation of scripture or anything else for that matter. None of the text you quote makes any substantial case for the incredibly amorphous man made doctrine of sola scriptura. The idea of using Scripture, as a touchstone for the validity of Tradition is hardly an endorsement of the man made doctrine of sola scriptura.

============================================================

Such as "Perpetual Virginity", "Bodily Assumption", "Papal Infallibility"?

[OLD REGGIE]

I see the problem. You see "tradition" as something static when tradition, in a living institution, is anything but static. Tradition is a living institution is dynamic.

------------------------------------------------------------

Please give a definition, and the dictionary it comes from, for "tradition". Any definition that implies "living" and "dynamic" would be novel indeed.

[JHavard]

What?

The sound of you rolling along.

Now that dosn't even sound funny to me now, I guess you loose something in translation. Lol

[dadwags]

Thank you for the thread .

[OLD REGGIE]

paramount authority, Like the Constitution, or the Law. But Those requires application and interpretation by competent authority. Frankly, the Law lends itself to this sort of treatment than the New Testament. If religion is to be boiled down to explication of Scripture, then rabbinical Judaism or Mohammedeanism are preferable to Protestant Christianity.

WHAT????

[Havoc]

Yes, and that statement pertains to trust in God, not in parents, and cannot be interpreted to contradict my statement. Indeed, Jesus gave his disciples plenty of evidence to believe in him, in the form of miracles, to prove his authority. In like manner, Peter an Paul worked miracles before the Gentiles to prove their authority. "Believe it because I say so," is a legitimate appeal only after authority has been established.

There were sorcerers of the day that performed 'miracles'. Signs are not proof. And signs were not used as proof. Authority is established on the Word of God, not in what a man can do. For there is nothing that one can do that the devil cannot fraudulently reproduce. On such things people are decieved for they look not to God but to outward appearances. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for the like. What the Apostles did, they did from authority through Jesus, not to prove they had any. Their fruits bore them out - the souls they led to Jesus. Wow, did a light just come on at home - possibly. The aim is to grow the kingdom, If the kingdom is souls, then those souls are the fruits. A tree of souls may have miracles for leaves, but, the fruits are the important part of the tree. Good fruit does what it's supposed to - ie it knows the word and will of God and follows them!

Believe it because I say it is never a legit argument. It must be proven - thus 'test every word' appears in the scriptures, 'discern the spirits' is written in scripture, 'Trust no man' and so on. Jesus established his authority through scripture and sticking to it, explaining it and showing it at work by living his life fully in the will of God. Jesus performed miracles only in fulfillment of faith, never to build it. Check every miracle he performed, 'as your faith is, so be it unto you.' Not to build faith, but to fulfill faith. Not to prove himself, but to prove those who relied on him. And he didn't do parolor tricks.

[Havoc]

I'm here; but, trying to work in some time for relaxation due to the high levels of stress at work of late. Seems to draw out the wolves when I'm absent.. I'll try to do better LOL

[Iowegian]

So Christ was born with original sin?

This is really very simple, Christ was born without a sinful nature (or original sin - to use a RC term) - like Adam and Eve, but that obviously doesn't mean that you cannot sin or be truly tempted, now does it? Jesus, unlike Adam and Eve, was tempted as we are, yet did not sin.

[Pelayo]

A tree of souls may have miracles for leaves, but, the fruits are the important part of the tree. Good fruit does what it's supposed to.

Interesting analogy, but would the tree have fruit if it was barren of leaves?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

LOL, I thought you meant it was thundering there as it is here. I was thinking, "why does he keep up with the weather here":)

Becky

[Pelayo]

Of course he could sin if he wanted, God could kill us all if he wanted. But God is 100% all good ergo Jesus was 100% all good, there was never a chance that Jesus would sin because it was not his nature, if he had sinned he would not have been God.

[Iowegian]

Even though Adam and Eve were not God, it was not in their nature to sin either, yet they did. If it was not possible for Christ to sin, it was not really temptation at all. But the Scriptures tell us that he was tempted, again your view makes God's word a lie.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

You mean this isn't relaxing? :)

Becky

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

These are good questions, but the most important question of all has not been asked or answered and that question is:

"Did Adam and Eve have a belly button?"

I will be looking forward to your indepth answers, Thank you all. :)

BigMack

[Pelayo]

Even though Adam and Eve were not God, it was not in their nature to sin either, yet they did.

No not really, it was in their nature to chose between good and evil.

If it was not possible for Christ to sin, it was not really temptation at all. But the Scriptures tell us that he was tempted, again your view makes God's word a lie.

You can't say God could chose evil, that is like saying good can be bad, or full can be empty.

[Pelayo]

Yes. They didn't need one.

Hope I've made myself vague[g]

[Havoc]

Catch up: 160:102

We should also consider wether giving up His divinity would have still made the act worth wild. If Jesus was not God, what was the effect of the Cross? plenty of normal mortals have died in similar instances, how did Jesus help if he was just one of them?

Had Jesus invoked his divinity anywhere along the line, he would have been admitting that men could not accomplish what he'd set out to prove they could. He would have surrendered the battle then and there. Jesus was proving that men could follow the Will of God in all things and live a sinless life. In proving it and dying free of sin, he ransomed us all! That is why I continually say, he was a man. Had he not been, we'd all just be whistling dixie. Had he not been the Son of God, the same would be true. Had he not been 'God with us', the same would be true. He had to be three things at once, denying his divinity and denying the nature of man - following only God's will.

He relied on the Law and the will of God. Think about that. Christianity isn't a new phenomenon. It is an old one with a new sacrifice and a new direct handling of sin. That's all! Instead of relying on men, we now rely and trust only in God! That was the point of Jesus' sacrifice - a ransom once and for all, and taking men out of the loop. Salvation is now strictly between any individual and his God. No room for a magicsternum or a priesthood, or a bunch of philosophies, etc. Jesus preached Love for brother and the Law. He denounced tradition and rules of men. He denounced those who looked for outward signs. Jesus didn't replace the law, he fullfilled it. You guys are trying to add your own twists to it just as the Pharisees and Saducees had. Jesus called it what it was then. And I call it what it is now.

[Havoc]

Catch up: 160:97

And very conveniently for you, he ended his earthly ministry about 1,970 years ago, and so now you can present your own interpretations, invoke his name for them, and he's not around to gainsay you.

Actually, he's very much with us - as much as when he walked the earth in flesh. He is here to gainsay me if I'm wrong. And I don't have to invoke his name in proclamation of scripture, the scripture does that quit well enough on it's own. It's just that some have their index fingers so deep in there ears and have nearly gauged their eyes out for fear of actually hearing or seeing the scripture. Some are more comfortable in clinging to their philosophies than in hearing and obeying God and coming out of them.

All I've heard from you so far is your private interpretations, Jack Chick/Lorraine Boettner stuff, and diatribes against history and philosophy.

Uh, no. You've heard scripture. Private interpretation has yet to much enter into it. And the Chick/Boettner charge... you guys need to get some new lines or something. I know they teach you to respond to Chick and Boettner. But, they don't ask you to fully defend, they just teach you to destroy the things those people apparently got wrong. Seems the Catholic church doesn't fully address their charges, just shruggs off all but what it can call absurd and paint them as absurdities. That is absolutely hilarious in its level of hypocrisy. Your so called 'church fathers' can't agree on things and get as much wrong as right even in your own estimations. If you applied the same standards to them as you apply to Chick and Boettner. Hypocrite. LOL. The funnier thing is, nobody is claiming Chick or Boettner to be inspired or scripture. Ya'll have elevated your 'church fathers' well beyond any status any of us might give either of the two you so lambaste. And I can't particularly remember quoting either of them - even once.

Whereas you, on the other hand, are receiving spiritual revelations?

"Oh ye of little faith," Revelations - it's always got to be the extreme with you because you lack faith. But, let's take the extreme, "But greater things shall ye do for I go to the Father." Where is your faith. I take your incredulous answer to mean you have no relationship with Christ, just a passing familiarity with the Bible and the world. How sad.

[Havoc]

160:100

How would that have been acting "fully in divinity"? It would have been exercising the powers of the Divine, but would have totally blew the one chance for repairing the infinite rift.

We cannot command angels, we may ask God for them to protect us; but, only God may command them -for He alone is their master.

You mean Jesus taught them? He didn't just give them a book and say "maketh of this what ye will"? Maybe someday you will understand "vicarhood" and how the Magisterium does the same teaching function of Jesus. Maybe. (Or, did it ever occur to you that Jesus created the Magisterium, and not the other way around? He didn't need them, they need Him.)

Jesus taught them! Yes, you've got it. He taught them and charged them to pass it on. And they did so by teaching and writing what they taught. The writing of what they taught was intended to last as a proof of what they taught - something against which we should test what others teach and preach. They followed the example of the Jews in writing what happened. We don't need a magicsternum. I understand the Vicarhood already, it's man's attempt to usurp the authority of Jesus and make of themselves Kings of the Lord's Kingdom. It will be recompensed by Jesus himself.

The Magicsternum wasn't created by Jesus, it's a Catholic invention. Nor did Jesus lay upon them any authority or power. No one is your master but one, God. If your master is Jesus then serve and obey him. But if your master be the magicsternum, then serve and obey them - your reward will be according to the Word of God in each case. You can have but one master. Jesus didn't need a the magicsternum and neither does any man that has ever lived. We have the inspired word of God. And we are to find worthy teachers whose words align with those of God - without twisting or adding to them.

[Havoc]

Interesting analogy, but would the tree have fruit if it was barren of leaves?

If we want to take that step, then one must say that, yes, it can produce fruit absent miracles. Jesus produced fruit without miracles. That's not to say he was completely baren of miracles. The miracles he performed are outnumbered by His fruits by a fairly vast percentage. Again, miracles are not a faith producer, they are a faith fullfiller. If you have a cup it can be filled. You don't hand someone a pound of water with no container surrounding it. Faith is a container. The more you excercise it by filling it and putting it's contents to use, the bigger the container gets. If you don't fill it, you might as well not have it. Thus if you bury your talent, it will be taken from you and given to one who will put it to use and make it grow!